Toellner Tells it

Kansas City Spay/Neuter of Pit Bulls almost 2 year report

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Kansas City Star regarding the nearly 2-year report on Kansas City's law that mandated the spay/neuter 'pit bull' type dogs.  The article calls the results "mixed" but that's being pretty gracious (or misleading).  The numbers are similarly on track to the numbers I reported 3 months ago.  

According to the article, the number of 'pit bulls' impounded since August 2006 (when the ordinance was passed, even though it didn't go into effect until December of the same year) was 4,000 dogs (in about a 22 month time window).  In the 25 months prior to the ordinance being enacted, the number of 'pit bulls' brought into the shelter was 2,600. If you amortize out the intakes (182 per month), that would be 4,550 killed in 25 months.  That's a 75% increase in impounded pit bulls since the ordinance took effect.

The number of 'pit bulls killed went from 1600 in the 25 months prior to the ordinance to 2,500 in the 22 months following the ordinance (2841 if you amortize out over 25 months) -- a 77.5% increase.

The number of bites has remained virtually the same (consistent with my numbers).

The Humane Society of the United States estimates that each animal brought into an animal control facility, held for the minimum of 5 days, and then euthanized, costs $117 per animal. So with an increase of 1,241 animals over 25 months that are euthanized cost the taxpayers of Kansas City about $145,000 in fees just for containing and killing these dogs.  In 2005 our animal control department only answered 20% of its calls, and according to Mike Schumacher (who oversees animal control), there is currently a 4 hour response time for animal control calls because of poor staffing.  This year, our city also cut funding for the Zoo and other services while Mayor Funkhouser suggested closing the shelter due to a lack of funds.  So AC is spending a LOT of money that could have been used to hire or train several more animal control officers or for a host of other services our city desperately needs.  Where is the oversight on spending?

Interestingly, the article in the Star spent most of its time interviewing the two organizations (Kansas City Animal Control and Spay/Neuter Kansas City) that supported the ordinance two years ago while leaving the opponents, like Kansas City Dog Advocates that testified before the council on this ordinance, completely out of the discussion. And somehow the supporters looked at these numbers and declared that the ordinance is showing signs of working.

"All I can explain to you is that we obviously impound more, and the more we get off the street, the less we'll have out there," said Patrick Egberuare, the new head of animal control (Mr. Egberuare was not involved in getting this ordinance passed, those honors go to his new boss Mr. Schumacher). 

The only thing I can take from this quote is that if we kill them all now, there will be fewer to kill later, which will help our kill numbers. ????

Michelle Dormandy, who runs Spay/Neuter Kansas City and also supported the ordinance originally, also found upside.

"If it wasn't for the ordinance, we wouldn't have spayed and neutered as many as we have, but the downside to the ordinance is that there are more dying."

Isn't the point of spaying and neutering to decrease the killing? So if your increasing the killing to increase spay/neuters, is that an improvement?  Really? So other than that pesky dying, it's going great!

The article completely ignores that the city has also had several problems with taking people's animals for not being neutered and accidentally killing them in the shelter, even when the owner agreed to get the animal spayed/neutered.

The article also has a nice angle of thinly veiled racism with how these dogs are a big part of the "urban" culture and not as much in the suburbs...because we know that "urban" in this case has very little to do with where the people live.

Here's the thing folks. Enforcing the law is having the following effects:

1) Animal Control is going out and confiscating and killing dogs because they aren't altered (or in some cases, just not licensed).  There are reports of cutting locks off kennels and seizing dogs when owners are not present and without warrents.  There are possible constitutional violations going on with illegal search and seizures. 

2) Because the shelter is overflowing with animals, the 75% increase in impounded pit bulls has led to a 77% increase in the number of pit bulls killed (even though the ordinance was supposed to have the opposite effect).

3) There is no evidence to support that we are even denting the overall population of dogs, as many of these owners are now going out and getting new dogs -- which is increasing the demand for bred dogs (it seems unlikely that these people are running out and adopting dogs at the local shelter that just killed their previous dog).

4) The law has had no impact on the number of dog bites.  This isn't increasing public safety so what is the point besides wasting time and resources?

5) All of this has come at a large price to taxpayers, and with a huge waste of animal control resources -- a department that like so many in the city is inefficient, ineffective, and underfunded.

And yet somehow this is seen as "mixed" results? 

Mayor Funkhouser, the city council and taxpaying citizens of KCMO should demand a full, independent audit of this department, its policies and its practices.  Increasing citizen satisfation with city services was a campaign promise of the Mayor and animal control has been broken for far too long. 

What's the hurry?

Tomorrow, a local judge will declare a ruling about whether or not the smoking ban (which would make smoking in all bars, restaurants and non-casinos illegal) that was voted on by the public back in April will go into effect. It's most likely that the judge will rule in favor of the ban...but I have to ask the question, what's the rush?

The ordinance was slated to take effect 60 days after the election.  It is now a couple weeks after that.  My hope is that they will at the very least make the decision to have the ban not go into effect until after the end of the year.

Many of the downtown bars and restaurants are already feeling the impact of the city-funded Power and Light district downtown.  The Mango Room, Fred P. Otts and Paddy O'Quigleys have all already closed. Tacking an all-out ban on smoking on top of the hit of the P&L District will undoubtedly mean that several other locally owned bars and restaurants will shut their doors.  Emptybuildings are bad for Kansas City.  Locally owned bars and restaurants going out of business is bad for Kansas City. 

Let's give these local business owners until the end of the year to make some necessary changes to their businesses in order to compete under the new rules. The P&L District was designed to be non-smoking -- but in each case, the buildings all have outdoor seating that allow for smokers to enjoy their beer while they dine. Most of the local restaurants, which have to fight city ordinances in order to create sidewalk seating, don't have the same option.  Giving these restaurants time to build outdoor/sidewalk seating options (while easing the red tape for them to do so) would be majorly beneficial in helping them put measures into place to compete with the P&L without the smokers. 

Not doing so, will undoubtedly cause major hardships on locally owned bars and restaurants.

Is American Car Culture Running out of Gas?

The Philadelphia Inquirer had an editorial a couple of weeks ago entitled, "Is American Car Culture Running out of Gas?"

While the writer doesn't assume people are going to instantly give up their automobiles, he does note that the car culture developed in this country hasn't turned out to work so well.  He notes that on top of the enviornmental problems that come from too much motor traffic and suburban sprawl, it hasn't been good for individuals either.  The average American spends 100 hours in communting every year -- slightly more time than the average American spends on vacation.

How, then, can I say that car culture doesn't work? Because the cost to individual and communal life, and to the environment, has been too high. And the bill is just now coming due.

Interestingly, KC Light Rail Blog has a post today that several Johnson County Bus Routes are becoming overcrowded.  JOCO can't afford to add more buses, so they're left trying to deal with what they have -- but it's encouraging that bus ridership is growing.

My company this week has offered us an incentive to car-pool, take public transit or walk/bike to work. I made the decision to bike (it's an easy ride for me although the lack of bike lanes made it a bit dicey in rush hour traffic). Many of my co-workers have opted for the bus -- and have found out just how difficult (and time consuming) it can be to get from our suburbs to downtown on the bus.  I hope to have a few anecdotal stories to share later on this. It's pretty clear that there may be a lot of room and demand for improvement in public transportation in the near future.

On a related note, it looks like the Dutch have offered an incentive where every three years, people can buy a new bicycle with pre-tax income.  The idea is to encourage people to buy bicycles, which have much less strain on infastructure and the environment.  Not a bad idea.

It's very evident that as we become more concerned about our environment and gas becomes more costly, we must provide more and better options for people who want to take public transit -- and possibly incent using other options of transit for the betterment of the environment and our infastructure.